Poll: Catholics Strongly Support New Mass Translation After First Year (4663)

Seventy percent of U.S. Catholics view the changes in a positive light, according to a September 2012 CARA survey.

WASHINGTON — One year after the Church introduced revisions to the English-language liturgy, an overwhelming majority of Catholics continue to view the changes in a positive light.

A new poll finds that 70% of U.S. adult self-identified Catholics agree with the statement, “Overall, I think the new translation of the Mass is a good thing.”

The poll, conducted in September 2012 by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, sought to gain an understanding of how adult Catholics perceived the third edition of the Roman Missal that went into use on Nov. 27, 2011.

The overwhelming majority of respondents either agreed — 50% — or strongly agreed — 20% — that the new translation is a good thing.

Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week were most likely to approve of the revised liturgy, with more than 80% agreeing that it was a good thing. However, even among those who rarely attend Mass, more than 60% approved of the new translation.

Respondents who said that they had noticed great changes in the Mass were more likely to view the new translation in a negative light, compared to those who had noticed moderate changes, small changes or none at all.

Commissioned by the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, the survey asked participants whether they have a good understanding of the meaning of the prayers recited by the priest and people at Mass and if the words of those prayers make it easier for them to participate in the Mass.

They were also asked whether those prayers of the Mass help them feel closer to God and inspire them to be a more faithful Catholic in their daily lives.

In each case, at least three-quarters of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Catholics who attend Mass more regularly were more likely than others to strongly agree with each statement.

Among weekly churchgoers, there were no significant differences between the responses to these questions in the September 2012 survey and a similar study conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate in 2011 before the revised liturgy was in use.

Analyzing the Results

The results of the new survey were first presented by Father Anthony Pogorelc of The Catholic University of America at a Nov. 9 meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Religious Research Association in Phoenix.

“This is a preliminary study,” Father Pogorelc told Catholic News Agency, adding that various follow-up projects could be conducted to explore why people have responded in various ways.

Those who do not see the changes to the Mass as a good thing may have a poor understanding of the new texts, he explained, or they may think that it is better to translate the liturgy using a method of “dynamic equivalence.”

This method, which was used in the previous edition, sought to translate the Latin into the ordinary “language of the people.” However, it was replaced with a more literal and accurate translation in the third edition of the Roman Missal in order to restore some of the theological meaning that may have been lost.

While every generation included in the survey demonstrated a positive view of the new translation, Father Pogorelc said that age difference could have an impact on how different groups are reacting to the changes.

For example, while they overwhelmingly believe the changes to be a good thing, members of the pre-Vatican II generation, born before 1943, may find the new liturgy challenging, struggling to remember the new responses due to their age, he said.

The millennial generation, born in 1982 or later, shows the highest rate of dissatisfaction with the new translation, although even among this group nearly 60% approve of the changes.

While the reasons for this are not clear, Father Pogorelc suggested that it might be tied to findings in other studies that this younger generation is less affiliated with religion and churches in general.

In addition, he said, social factors could influence this group of Catholics. For example, the decline of the family meal could be leading to a weaker understanding of “ritual” in connection with the Mass.

“It would be interesting to explore this a bit more, now that we have this basic data,” Father Pogorelc said, observing that perhaps focus groups could be assembled in the future to better assess people’s understanding of the liturgical changes at a deeper and more thorough level.

In the meantime, he suggested, it is good for priests to continue preaching on the texts of the Mass, particularly when they fit in closely with the readings.

Much of the Mass references Scripture, he observed, and “integrating some of the texts of the Mass into the preaching” can show the people the close connection between the two.

Said Father Pogorelc, “I think that kind of thing can be very helpful.”

Comments

“I want to believe”—can you help me understand you better? What do you mean by “poor grammar”? Can you give an example of “stilted lexicon”? I really want to understand why the new text gets in your way.

Posted by I want to believe on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2012 12:57 AM (EST):

Gotta be honest. I Missed mass about 6 times in 44 years (from being sick). I felt so off, so wooden, like Harry potter reciting an incantation full of run-on sentences with poor grammar and stilted lexicon. Lex Orandi lex credendi. My prayers felt fake, I looked inward and found my faith fake. I haven’t been to mass in a year. I’m not saying the new words of the mass destroyed my faith. But having a systematics degree, summa cum laude, from a conservative major catholic seminary , I now find myself awkwardly and reluctantly agnostic, and this inability to believe what i once believed, seems very intimately connected with these new words of the missal that spoke to me as spiritually hollow and politically-laden. Again, the German bishops and their “pay to pray,” the episcopacy’s handling of the sex abuse crisis, the Vatican bank scandal - these have been further wedges in my ability to again cultivate any sort of faith. But the introduction of these words was pretty pivotal.
And appreciating the penchant of vultures to attack a carnage they’ve never personally known, I now invite those with a like proclivity to set upon me and my earnestness, the veracity of which I’m sure they will question ;-)

Posted by timothy canezaro on Thursday, Dec 20, 2012 2:22 AM (EST):

For those that are Catholic, the changes are changes no longer and idle chit chat, complaints, and weak attempts to use it as a launching point to promote another view or way of worshipping does nothing to contribute to anything positive dialogue wise. Debate as I see it with religious or spiritual matters are an useless endeavor; but conversations with others may lead to good insights and mutual understandings. Heaven forbid we appreciate the strengths in other faiths where perhaps in our own Faith tradition we may grow in worldly comprehension and compassion. The great thing about being a Christian of any stripe is it’s all a choice. We all choose in our hearts in the end by what we do with what we’re given. Blessings everyone.

Posted by Chris on Saturday, Dec 8, 2012 1:39 AM (EST):

Linda—So where do you stand? Do you like the new translation or not? Some of it, none of it?

You say my arguments are wrong and unacceptable—is it that I ask questions?

Posted by Linda Nelson on Friday, Dec 7, 2012 4:43 PM (EST):

Chris: yes, you are flummoxed.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Friday, Dec 7, 2012 2:57 PM (EST):

To rely on the community for salvation is anathema!

Posted by Casting Crowns on Friday, Dec 7, 2012 1:33 PM (EST):

If the leadership assumes there is some huge groundswell of support coming from pew Catholics for all these changes and the importance which they feel is imperative then they are delusional. These changes are like someone in Congress trying to get a bill passed through committee until it finally becomes law. The idea such changes in the Mass are Holy Spirit inspired are only in the dreams of the clergy committee where this originated. The Pharisees were big on exercising ritual also. Jesus was not impressed.

Posted by Chris on Friday, Dec 7, 2012 12:38 PM (EST):

Linda: I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the now current text of the Credo is okay, but my defense of it (for being accurate), is wrong and unacceptable? I’m flummoxed. My argument is for accuracy in English, not change. The old translation did not match the Latin original, the new one does. Deviations from the Truth are not Catholic, that’s why the translation had to change.
Are you saying that that old phrase was “absolutely correct” for putting the incarnation and conception at the same time? Why then does it mention his birth? Here’s the Latin and the current English versions:
“Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine. Et homo factus est.”
“And by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man.”
You don’t have to speak much Latin to see that the new translation matches and the old one did not. (“By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.”)
Or perhaps you like the new translation but do not like how people (including priests) are behaving during the mass? (Though you seemed to say of the new translation “there is something abnormal - something unnatural and just plain weird and incomprehensible about it”, so I don’t think you like it, even though you call the old translation a lie.)
Do you think the new translation is correct?

Posted by Linda Nelson on Friday, Dec 7, 2012 8:32 AM (EST):

Chris: There is nothing wrong with the Credo. It is your argument that is wrong and unacceptable. But, given the path the modernists are taking the Church down, the Credo will probably be changed soon, destroying the Faith further, because they bow to arguments such as the one you gave. The tendency in the modern Church is to make everything abrasive and in-your-face. Unfortunately, an obsession with contemporary oddities like ‘what came first the chicken or the egg?’ is beginning to be put into practice in our modernist religion. The fact is, the Credo does NOT say Christ “Was born of the Virgin Mary THEN became man”, it says “AND became man” which puts no time frame on Jesus (Who is in fact eternal). The semantics are absolutely correct - in fact, the most completely valid definition is that using the word “AND” would put the conception and becoming man at the exact same time. It is your error, not the entire tradition of the Church, here. That which is true follows Christ Himself. Deviations from the Truth are not Catholic.

BTW, using the words “We believe” in the Credo (changed by socialists with an agenda) was changed back to the original “I believe”, thank God. Catholics can not speak for others (who may be atheists) sitting in the pew next to them - the “We” made the prayer a lie. Catholics can not know the beliefs of anyone else but their own. Traditional prayers like the Latin Credo were written by very intelligent people who were in tune with the Holy Spirit. And… they put the sign of the cross at the beginning of the Mass for many holy reasons. Removing it is also an error.

Posted by Chris on Thursday, Dec 6, 2012 12:10 AM (EST):

Sorry, Linda, I didn’t see your comment of 12/4 8:32 before I wrote my later one.

I’ll agree with you, I am a bad Catholic. Often abrasive and conceited. But that doesn’t make everything that I like bad also. I’m not even convinced that they’re correlated. If only smarty-pants meant “smart” and wise-guy meant “wise” then I’d really be something!

I disagree that needing to get used to something means that it’s unnatural. All it means is that the thing is new. Serving a tennis ball overhand is not a natural feeling, and takes some getting used to. Pronouncing foreign words properly needs a lot of getting used to. You have had 40 years getting used to the old translation of the mass. It would be surprising if anyone did not need to get used to the new one.

I agree that the mass does need to start with the sign of the cross. I’m surprised at your assertion that Abp Aquilia didn’t. That’s not the way the mass is written. I’d prefer to keep the discussion on the mass the way the Church says it should be done, rather than talk about the failings of one mass or another.

(By the way, the mass at my parish was the dedication of our new altar. It was an amazing mass! Incense, oil, sprinkling, litany of the saints. All very proper and according to the book. And an hour and a half long!)

Can you give a try at the questions in my post of 12/5 1:14 am? I really would like to hear something specific from someone, and I bet you have some ideas along those lines.

Posted by Chris on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2012 12:14 AM (EST):

The comments here have people in favor giving examples of why they like it, but the people opposed tend to be vague, “it’s awkward.” Can one opponent give an example of what you mean by “awkward” or “inaccurate”? Please?
I have an example of awkward—In the “Hail Mary” the phrase “... now and at the hour of our death” is actually hard to pronounce. I’m working hard to get my kids not to mumble “... now ‘n the hour of our death.” Do you have an example like that in the new translation of the mass? Is there something that is just hard to pronounce? (Of course, I haven’t heard anyone proposing to fix the Hail Mary, I’m just mentioning this as an example to help someone, anyone, give a similar example in the new text of the mass.)
Or how about inaccurate? In the previous translation the Creed used to say “Was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” But our theology says that he was a man from the moment of his conception, and didn’t have to wait for birth to become a man. That’s inaccurate, and not acceptable anymore in the creed that we say at mass. Do you opponents of the new translation think there is anything that has gone from accurate to inaccurate?

Posted by Linda Nelson on Tuesday, Dec 4, 2012 7:32 PM (EST):

Chris: Your attitude is very telling and offensive as the translations you uphold. When something “takes some getting used to”, that means that there is something abnormal - something unnatural and just plain weird and incomprehensible about it. That is, until you do it over and over and over so that it no longer makes any difference that the things that bothered you - things that weren’t quite right - meld into everyday life and are forgotten. It’s kind of like how the GBLT tries to get people to agree with their passions - by forcing others to join in “diversity” and “inclusion” talks that make them feel uncomfortable so that their sentiments will be promoted (through you). Yes, the New Mass makes a LOT of people uncomfortable and so many have left what used to be the exclusively “Holy Catholic Church”.

You mentioned attending Archbishop Aquila’s Mass. Well, the LAST (and I mean LAST) time I attended one of his, it was a “contemporary” Mass on a Sunday night at the Cathedral. Funny thing, but he didn’t even make the sign of the cross at the beginning. Is this one of the new changes you agree with for the new, liberal, anything-goes “contemporary” changes? Or is it just related to memory loss or effects of alcohol that he “forgot” this very important part of the Mass? I am upset and do not wish to find out. I’d just rather not go. No, the effects of alcohol and the new bar “ministries” could very well have something to do with the incomprehensible, unnatural feel of the new Mass, contrary to your insinuation that my comments were inappropriate. Priests and Bishops turning their face towards alcohol instead of God - and taking others with them - is a real problem for their souls and their flocks.

One must judge the REALITY they see at Mass. What I see is lack of holiness - something that should be rejected by any Catholic. From the embarrassing “handshake and sexual kiss and embrace of peace” to the lack of the sign of the cross, faith and the reality of the destruction of the Church are things every Catholic needs to consider when deciding whether to attend these Masses. Being embarrassed, insulted and humiliated at Mass yields sin - and we are taught to avoid the occasions of sin.

Posted by Debra on Tuesday, Dec 4, 2012 10:59 AM (EST):

I love the new translation and couldn’t wait for it to go into effect. I had been reading about it for three years. The common language translation was so watered down it was just sad. “Through my own fault” and “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” may be roughly synonymous, but they do not carry the same emotional or spiritual impact in the least. I was shocked when I attended a Spanish Mass only to discover this kind of mangling had only been done in English! Now if we could just get rid of all the bizarre and meaningless gestures that aren’t really supposed to be there, which totally distract from worship and prayer from the heart.

Posted by Concerned on Monday, Dec 3, 2012 12:02 PM (EST):

I don’t like the new translation. I go to Mass every day. The new translation is not going to stop me from participating in this awesome event, but, the New Translation is not helping me to pray and worship in a more sacred manner, actually I find it to be very distracting in the wording of most of the prayers.

Posted by M. Waters on Monday, Dec 3, 2012 10:28 AM (EST):

I have never felt so distant from my church as I do today. You keep changing the prayers and the wording and the people are just mumbling something but have no idea what? First, I feel like I just walked into Walmart with all the chatter and noise. What ever happened to the sanctity of the church once you went through the door? I blame the pastors for this. There is no quiet contemplation before mass anymore. That was the one place I knew I could spend quiet time to reflect. I might just as well be in another church. Second, the priest are reading from a piece of paper, hello? what happen to teaching from the heart and by the Holy Spirit? Have we lost something here? Most of the time it has little to do with the readings. Third, I see “everyone going to communion” yet I never see more then six people at confession at any given time. And confession is only for an hour, if that, and only on one day? And “Divine Mercy Sunday” wasn’t even spoken of in church, let alone given the full meaning explained to everyone! Plus there was “NO CONFESSIONS” at any of the churches around my area on that week-end! PLEASE TELL ME HOW THESE PRIEST ARE SAVING SOULS ???? Isn’t that there job??? And you wonder why your loosing people? Jesus said He came “not to change the law”, but to fulfill it! Can we get back to having the sanctity of a Christ driven church we once had, PLEASE?

Posted by Tapestry on Monday, Dec 3, 2012 9:47 AM (EST):

The ‘new translation’ is really the words we knew from the Latin translations in our St Joseph’s Missals from the 60s. There is nothing new and certainly nothing so awful it would ‘drive young people’ away.
The problem with young people is they are working and busy with worldly things.
They don’t think they need God in their lives because they were not taught well by the CCD and RC programs. I remember my 2 oldest daughters dealing with the inane things that had nothing to do with Confirmation(falling backwards as a sign of trust and being told ‘we had evolved away’ from things like transubstanciation!).
No wonder my 4 children, though we prayed at home, went to Mass each Sunday and Holy Days, fasting during Lent, rosary, etc.. didn’t ‘take’.. my oldest daughter and son go ocasionally to church like Christmas and Easter and once in a while when they have time. One is an atheist(said she never had a spiritual side), the other an atheist doing very wrong things ‘without guilt’ she told me that last month.
It must be nice to have no sin, no guilt in your life and no reason to attend Mass. I can only pray that they get a clue before their lives end. Returning to the Church no matter what the liturgy is like can only lead them to the Truth and peace of Jesus Christ.

Posted by Jessica on Monday, Dec 3, 2012 9:24 AM (EST):

As one of those 25 year olds in a parish that has maybe a handful of twenty-somethings in my parish, I love the new translation. Young people are either going to accept the Church or turn away, it has always been like that. It depends on how we can reach the young church and help them actually connect with God. The new translation is wonderful, it is more prayerful and helps me to pay more attention (despite my having discerned religious life I still have a wandering attention at times) it helps me to relate more to Jesus and there is a richness in the words that seems to transcend the everyday. It helps make the sacred present. There is a wonderful play on words too when we say “Lord, I am not ready that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” The top of our mouth is in fact called the roof. Our soul is in fact within our body and it’s nice to be reminded that we have to feed our soul as much as we need to feed our body. It has lead me to a much more profound worship of God.

Posted by Bob on Monday, Dec 3, 2012 7:42 AM (EST):

The changes are terrible. I give my responses as I always did. Those who run the Church are either horribly misguided or deliberately sabotaging things.

Posted by Eric on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 11:53 PM (EST):

Not quite sure who their interview sample was. I can assure you that 70% of the priests and parishioners I know would not give it a glowing approval.

Posted by Claudia Windal, OSF on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 10:06 PM (EST):

I have not spoken to one Catholic who believes it even a good or moral idea to publish the new missel! The wording is awkward and, for many, not a good fit.
How many people have continued to go hungry since you began this project and took money from their needs? A new missal when the “faithful” are not being very faithful at all….they want a church that s speaks, responds and cares aout today. A church that can understand that Jesus would NOT act as the Church does….and Jesus must shed tears.
Have you noticed that you haven’t received any encouragement from those who have responded?!

Posted by Bob Rowland on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 5:08 PM (EST):

It was a long overdue effort to recover the soul of the spiritual Mass of St Pope Pius V and eliminste the community we of the social Mass. Ihe “new” translation seems to imply again that we alone are responsible for our salvation, instead of the con=community.

Posted by RJ on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 2:42 PM (EST):

I wish I had been surveyed. I think the whole translation project was a boondoggle. The previous translation was beautiful and easy to recite and, as far as I am concerned, “Accurate.” I still hear people stumble over the new wording even sometimes the priest. The wording is some places in the mass is awkward and just doesn’t flow.

If you click on the “poll” link in the above article it tells you something about the number of people polled - 2012 survey was completed by 1,047 self-identified Catholics who were 18 years of age or older while the 2011 survey included 1,239 self-identified Catholics who were 18 years of age or older. It also mentions that fifty-seven percent of the KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS panel members who were invited to take the survey completed it. Who are these people and do the represent or introduce any particular bias in favor of the new translation? More discussion needs to be seen about the methodology.

Posted by Chris on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 2:12 PM (EST):

One more thing, Rick, can you give an example of where a literal translation in the new mass text is inaccurate? Without an example it sounds just like grousing about having to learn something different.

Posted by Andrew Wolfe on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 12:58 PM (EST):

New translation - huge improvement.

The import of my opinion - none.

The benefit of receiving Christ at Eucharist - still immeasurable.

Posted by Anne on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 12:48 PM (EST):

The people that I have heard that don’t like it are people that don’t go to church regularly. They feel like an outsider not realizing that those who are there every Sunday are now used to it and like it. I personally find myself paying more attention and getting much more out of it. Maybe some of these people should examine there consciences and decide if they really do want to be Catholic. I find it insulting when these same people criticize everything the church is doing. They seem to be waiting for the pope that will see it their way. All we can do is pray for them. These people are not what our church needs.

Posted by Joe DeCarlo on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 11:41 AM (EST):

Attend the real mass!!! The latin mass, which hasn’t changed in centuries. It has added to the mass, but nothing has been taken out of the latin mass. The ordinary mass, the Vatican II mass, is nothing more than a protestant service. Ecumenism is the reason for the present mass. If you attended a protestant mass, you could not tell the difference. The Catholic church has lost its identity with all the changes since Vatican II. Actually, Vat II’s results were a disaster. Before Vatican II, the seminaries, convents, schools were full. Mass Attendance was about 90% compared to about 30% today. Who goes to confession today? There were long lines for confession before Vatican II. Now, the priest must twiddle his thumbs in the confessional booth, waiting for penitents.

Posted by Howard Johnson on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 10:38 AM (EST):

You’ll probably find the CARA survey is nonsense. No one I know likes the changes.

Posted by Seamus Graham on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 6:33 AM (EST):

Bet you didn’t expect the comments above when you posted this article!!
As a 67 year old I have been through all this before. When the language was changed from Latin to English there were a lot of objectors too. In a few years everyone will be answering to the new translation. The most important thing is to mean the words being said.

Posted by Chris on Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 1:07 AM (EST):

Funny. I agree with the two prior comments that the article is odd. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with them, and I say the new translation is welcome and long overdue.

“Literal” is usually more accurate when the languages are as close as English and Latin are. (Perhaps they don’t seem close, but I speak 6 languages, and English and Latin are close.) In particular, the old translation simply omitted things from the Latin, said things that weren’t in the Latin, and mangled other things that could have been said accurately.

“We believe” instead of “I believe”? Are you kidding me? Literal is accurate. It is not awful. A room full of people saying “I believe” is more serious than a room full of people saying “We believe (maybe not me in particular, but I think some people here generally believe something like this).”

Linda, 70% may be a bad grade, but it’s an astounding result in a survey. (What was the popular vote electing the president recently, 51%?) I do not see that the new text is “pablum,” a baby food. It does take more understanding to get into. “Consubstantial,” “Incarnate,” “... my most grievous fault.” It is solid food for those who wish it.

After that, your comments do seem to veer off a bit from the mass, so I’ll pause for now.

We just had Archbishop Aquila at our parish tonight. I almost always remember the new words, but even when slip up and I say the old words, everyone around me keeps on saying the new. The mass is still worship, praise, sacrifice, love, all it is meant to be. Do not judge the mass, but come and worship.

Posted by Esther Davis on Saturday, Dec 1, 2012 11:48 PM (EST):

I am 82 years old, and I liked the old language of the Mass, but I don’t mind the new translation. But, what I don’t like, is the new Mass music. Our parish has changed it to a much simpler tune that we can all carry and enjoy much better than the music that was in those little Red Books. I didn’t sing along with it most of the time.

Posted by Terah James on Saturday, Dec 1, 2012 5:10 PM (EST):

I think different parts of the English speaking world that had changes, would respond differently about this. Most people I know do not like the newer, formal, stiff translation. Even priests do not sound comfortable with it, and after a year.

I found my own participation has become more limited at Mass, as I don’t even feel like I’m praying to God, and worshipping with a heart for Him, rather, I feel like I’m just reciting words that are Vatican-approved.
Looking around the church, I am not alone. Most people in the pews are more like spectators. They made it a point to recite the proper responses, early on, much like kids in second grade trying to please a teacher.

I don’t even sing as much as I did before, with the Novos Ordos Mass. I noticed when the closing hymn is a lively one, most people in the parish begin to leave right when the priest reaches the last pew, turning around and talking with each other, not even paying attention to the words of the last hymn. It bothers me, when the last hymn is one of praise and I’m trying to sing with the music leaders.

I find if it’s one I know, and it’s a praise song, I sing it, but it’s hard to keep a tune, when others are talking all around me, and even the priest starts greeting people and talking, hugging people and not paying attention to the last hymn. When it’s a hymn of praise, I find it disrespectful to God and to those of us that are trying to praise by using that last hymn. It’s as if the Mass is over, when the priest reaches the last pew of the church.

Since no one asked me my opinion, and I know of no one else that was asked in a “survey”, I share my thoughts with you. Please don’t critize what I wrote. It’s just how I feel. I am being honest about it, for what it’s worth.

This survey reminds me of the Mayor of Los Angeles asking the congregants at the Democratic Convention if they wanted to put God and Israel back into their platform, & after 3 votes where “NO” was the clear consensus, the mayor said something like, “The Yes’s have it! It’s been decided, God and Israel are back in”, to which, most everyone there boo-ed him. Frankly, I don’t think anyone in Rome or the UCSSB really cares what people in the pews think.

Posted by ANNE on Saturday, Dec 1, 2012 3:54 PM (EST):

Sorry guys, but this is all in accord with Church teaching - including indulgences.
If you have not read the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” in entirety you risk looking ignorant.
Regarding ‘wine’ read your Bible PS 104 15, and the CCC again which includes footnotes. Not to mention the marriage celebration at Cana.
The USA language changes in the Mass are a little closer to the Latin verbiage which is much more reverant and beautiful.
It would not matter, but if you took a poll on the interuption of prayer to the Lord to shake hands with those all around you, and the mimicing of the Priest in violation of GIRM raising arms during the Lord’s Prayer - these would not get a favorable rating either.
If we each saw Jesus in person would we kneel? or merely stand like we do when our team makes a touchdown? Phil 2:9-10.
The problem is lousy catechesis over the past 50 years.
For more info on what you can do to help, on the net search: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Saturday, Dec 1, 2012 3:36 PM (EST):

Could Rick be talking about the Second Vatican Council?.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Saturday, Dec 1, 2012 3:34 PM (EST):

The “new” translation is not exactly new. It allows me to now officially use responses from the Tridentine Mass that I never stopped using even with the social Novus Ordo. For me it is a long overdue attempt to recover the lost spiritual nature that was so prevalent before the Second Vatican Council when all Catholic believed in the Real Presence instead of only about 25 percent that still believe now. That is surely not a positive indication of the renewal Pope John XXIII must have had in mind for the council. What can be positively said about a religion if 75 percent don’t even believe in the major doctrine of the faith?

Posted by MLsouth on Saturday, Dec 1, 2012 2:54 PM (EST):

The prayers are so much more meaningful and spiritually rich! And yes, they translation is more accurate to the original Latin. I know because when I say the prayers in English or Spanish I can tell I am actually saying the same thing. It amazes me to hear that some clergy and Catholics still complain about the new missal. Reminds me of those whiny toddlers that all they do is complain when they don’t like something. If half the congregation in a particular parish is still saying the old prayers then the pastors are not doing a good job of leading the flock. Or it might be that the pastor himself does not like the translation and as retaliation is not leading his flock to embrace the new prayers. Poor sign of leadership and of obedience to what the Church is asking of him as a pastor.

Posted by timothy canezaro on Friday, Nov 30, 2012 11:44 PM (EST):

The new Mass translations has been a Blessing in the sense that it affords any Mass-goer the chance to kinda refocus and relearn the words and how we participate in mass. I have two 95 year old grandparents that I attend Mass with every weekend and the change has been a little harder on them because they can’t see or hear as well as they used to. But not a big deal, they too have picked up the changes. There will always be those who complain and are unhappy but the important thing is that we just keep attending Mass to pray and learn faithfully the prayers and songs we sing together.

Posted by agustus delaney on Friday, Nov 30, 2012 8:22 PM (EST):

I don’t buy it…...Average Catholics don’t like the translations. Slanted surveys don’t do anyone any good

Posted by Linda Nelson on Friday, Nov 30, 2012 7:07 PM (EST):

Isn’t taking a poll on something already instituted a waste of time and money? When I was going to school, a 70% was a bad grade, and 50% was failing. Even 80% was frowned upon. The Mass is becoming pablum with little meaning, making me wonder what the mentality is behind it all. I submit that only those who already have faith “like” it. I am actually pretty offended by the “We DARE to pray” before the Our Father. We can get in God’s face if we want to, but please, not during the Mass itself!

Even the very newest attempts to help us with our faith - Year of Faith indulgences - are incomprehensible to even the most faithful. For instance, the Denver Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, has a few expensive signs posted saying it is a pilgrimage site for indulgences. It mentions attending “celebrations” (mass??), saying a few prayers, etc. but completely omits any mention of being in the state of grace, confession, or what a “celebration” is - and does not adequately explain what an indulgence is, either.

Maybe this has something to do with the new elite Catholic trend by clergy - “evangelizing” in bars - like Archbishop Aquila and Bishop Conley’s “ministry”. Some of alcohol’s most pernicious effects are addiction, disorientation, memory loss, brain damage, birth defects, child abuse, accidents, sexual exploitation and rape, heart and liver diseases, cancer, risky sexual behaviors leading to HIV, abortions and contraception practices, etc.

Could it be that the same thought process that drives priests and Bishops to promote alcohol is involved in wording of the new Mass and indulgence signs? Hmmm. Very interesting! Maybe the poll should include drinking, sexual, and moral standards statistics, too, to be fair.

Posted by Rick on Friday, Nov 30, 2012 2:52 PM (EST):

“it was replaced with a more literal and accurate translation”

More literal does not mean more accurate. The new translation is awful. Every Church I have been in has half the people saying the old translation and half the new. I am beginning to think the hierarchy is trying to think of new ways to drive young people from Mass. I think the average age of weekly Mass goers at my parish is 70

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.